Huang Hai: The Philosophical Logic Behind Constructing the Discourse System of Philosophy and Social Sciences with Chinese Characteristics
The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC emphasized: “Accelerate the construction of disciplinary, academic, and discourse systems for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics.” Against the historical backdrop of changes unseen in a century, the acceleration of global, epochal, and historical shifts has led to a complex situation in the field of discourse systems, characterized by cultural pluralism, ideological differentiation, and intense struggle. Consequently, this issue has increasingly become a focal point of academic research. At present, the academic community has provided extensive interpretations regarding the definitions, rationales, methods, content, and construction of discourse systems for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. These discussions have further enriched and deepened our understanding of the subject. A discourse system is closely related to theoretical and academic systems; it serves as the specific expression of an academic system and the external manifestation of a theoretical system.
The discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is a discourse cluster centered on answering the fundamental question of “what kind of socialism with Chinese characteristics should be upheld and developed in the New Era, and how to uphold and develop it.” It focuses on the core theme of “comprehensively advancing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation through Chinese-path modernization.” Rooted in the vivid practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics, it elaborates on a unified body of Chinese practical, theoretical, and institutional achievements. It breaks through the "stereotypes" [1] of "Western-centrism" and generates systematized and logical discourse expressions possessed of their own subjecthood—such as the discourses of "Chinese-path modernization," "common values of all humanity," "a community with a shared future for humanity," and "new forms of human civilization"—thereby providing discursive support for the cause of building socialism with Chinese characteristics. At the philosophical level, conducting scholarly research on the foundational issues of constructing this discourse system—through the lenses of the logical relationships between monism and diversity, critique and construction, the general and the particular, and the "ought" versus the "is"—holds significant theoretical and practical importance.
I. Monism and Diversity: Presuppositional Issues in Constructing a Discourse System for Philosophy and Social Sciences with Chinese Characteristics
Monism and diversity essentially discuss the dialectical relationship between the "One" and the "Many" within philosophical categories; this is a presuppositional issue that the construction of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must confront. The "One" here refers to the Dao [2] (the Way) behind the discourse; only by safeguarding the Dao can one safeguard the root of the discourse. The relationship between monism and diversity—or the "One and the Many"—is an ancient yet ever-new philosophical proposition. Monism and diversity exist in a state of mutual dependence and mutual definition. The "monism" in the construction of this discourse system refers to the unitary guidance and foundational point; "diversity" refers to the composition of the discourse cluster.
Based on the philosophical logic of monism and diversity, the monism within a discourse system considers discourse theory as an indivisible, holistic existence—it is the fundamental theory that governs the whole and dictates the direction. Diversity is manifested in the multi-dimensional construction of discourse sets and clusters as divisible, manifold existences. The monism of the discourse system guides the diversity and uses that diversity as the basis for its development; diversity, in turn, follows and submits to the monism, taking it as the prerequisite for its existence. That is to say, in constructing the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, one must take fundamental theory as guidance. Fundamental theory serves as the guiding ideology and principle for the methods, ideas, and paths of construction. At the same time, the construction of the discourse system cannot be divorced from the diverse existence of discourse. The multi-dimensional building of discourse sets and clusters emphasizes breaking through the cognitive limitations of single or fragmented utterances to promote a more concrete generation of discourse, giving rise to a systematized and logical discourse cluster through an "existence-as-system." Proceeding from this logic, the construction of the discourse system must first resolve this presuppositional issue: scientifically recognize the relationship between monism and diversity, grasp diversity through monism, and supplement monism through diversity. If the internal connection between the two is severed, it will inevitably lead to a one-sided understanding of both. From the philosophical logic of monism and diversity, we can grasp the construction of the discourse system through two dimensions.
On one hand, the construction of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics in the New Era has a clear "monistic" ideological and theoretical foundation. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "Behind discourse are ideas and the Dao." The fundamental theory of this discourse system is the core guiding ideology—the Dao—that it must follow. This Dao consists of Marxism and its Sinicized innovative theoretical achievements, which have guided China's revolution, construction, and reform and have flourished through Chinese practice. It also consists of the fine traditional Chinese culture, which has unified the Chinese nation and made Chinese civilization the only great civilization in the world to develop continuously to this day in the form of a state. "Why the Communist Party of China works, and why socialism with Chinese characteristics is good, boils down to the fact that Marxism works, particularly Marxism that has been Sinicized and adapted to our times." The formation of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is a discursive presentation and expression guided by the "soul-vein" [3] of Marxism and based on the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics. From Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, and the Scientific Outlook on Development, to Xi Jinping's Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the production and evolution of discourse content have remained consistent with the pace of the CPC’s theoretical innovation.
Meanwhile, regardless of how the era changes or how time and space shift, the fine traditional Chinese culture, acting as the "root-vein" [4], remains an essential element of the discourse system. "Only by not forgetting history can we open up the future; only by being good at inheritance can we be good at innovation. Fine traditional culture is the foundation for the heritage and development of a country and a nation." Since the start of the New Era, whether in the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan, the Four Comprehensives, or new concepts, categories, and expressions such as the "correct approach to righteousness and interests," "a community with a shared future for humanity," and "common values of all humanity," one can see the elements of fine traditional Chinese culture like "grey grass and snake-lines, the hidden vein stretching a thousand miles" [5]. Adhering to the "soul-vein" of Marxism and the "root-vein" of fine traditional Chinese culture determines the autonomy [6] of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics.
On the other hand, the construction of this discourse system must continuously create and generate a "diverse" collection of discourse featuring "signature concepts, signature generalizations, signature refinements, and signature expressions." This "Many" is a multi-modal, three-dimensional, multi-level, and all-encompassing discourse cluster. This discourse system is a specific system summarized and refined based on the practice of economic and social development since the 18th National Congress of the CPC. It is an organic fusion of traditional Chinese discourse and modern discourse systems, built upon the historical traditions, cultural traditions, and realistic foundations of our country's development. It is a collection of discourses—possessing their own subjecthood and universal significance—produced through the vivid practices of contemporary China. The ultimate goal of discursive expression is to achieve an identification with China’s own discursive theoretical paradigm, forming a multi-modal, three-dimensional, multi-level, and all-encompassing discourse system that fully manifests Chinese subjecthood, displays China's image, tells China's story well, and executes China's expressions effectively. For example, the emergence of the "Chinese-path modernization" discourse profoundly reflects that China's modernization possesses its own subjecthood and is essentially different from Western modernization. Chinese-path modernization is neither a footnote to Western modernization nor a "decoupling" from it; rather, it is a completely different path of modernization walked by the Chinese people under the leadership of the CPC, deeply rooted in the fertile soil of fine traditional Chinese culture, and guided by Marxism and its Sinicized innovative theoretical achievements. Compared with "Western modernization," "Chinese-path modernization" possesses its own discursive subjecthood. Highlighting discursive subjecthood is the foundation for preventing discourse from becoming "parroting what others say," and reflecting the ideas and the Dao behind the discourse is the foundation of having discursive subjecthood. Discourses like "Chinese-path modernization" are integrations of discourse—diverse in layers and featuring Chinese characteristics, style, and spirit—generated from the "monistic" guidance of Marxist theory and the soil of fine traditional Chinese culture.
II. Critique and Construction: Strategic Issues in Constructing a Discourse System for Philosophy and Social Sciences with Chinese Characteristics
Critique and construction essentially discuss the dialectical relationship between "breaking" (po) and "establishing" (li) [7] within philosophical categories; this is a strategic issue that the construction of the discourse system must face. Critique and construction are a pair of important philosophical categories. The advancement of human civilization, the progress of human thought, and the development of human society are completed through the alternating interaction and spiral ascent of critique and construction. Their mutual connection and interaction constitute the basic mode of development for both theoretical and practical activities. Critique is the prerequisite for construction; "establishing" takes "breaking" as its premise. Critique is the negation of an object and the result of philosophical reflection. As noted, purposive activity is not directed at itself, but rather aims to achieve reality in the form of external actuality by abolishing the determinations (aspects, features, phenomena) of the external world. Construction is the purpose of critique; one "breaks" in order to "establish." Critiquing existing or inherent thinking, ideas, consciousness, and activities is done to obtain new thinking, ideas, consciousness, and activities based on a critical reflection of the original state. In Anti-Dühring, Engels elaborated on the internal connections between the three components of Marxism by critiquing Dühring's erroneous views; in Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, he critiqued the class essence of Hegelian philosophy and affirmed Feuerbach's materialist stance while critiquing his idealist views, thereby constructing the basic principles of dialectical and historical materialism.
Based on the philosophical logic of critique and construction, the construction of a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must adhere to a strategic method that unifies the two. So-called "critique" means that—based on the cognitive premise of constructing Chinese philosophy and social sciences—one must directly confront the core propositions behind Western discursive hegemony from the roots of epistemology and methodology, jump out of the discursive "traps" hidden behind Western social sciences, and break Western discursive myths. So-called "construction" means that with the necessary cultural self-awareness, one must persist in rooting oneself in and highlighting one's own subjecthood to build a discourse system that "connects with the local soil" and possesses Chinese characteristics, style, and spirit. In a context where Chinese discourse coexists with Western discourse—and where the latter has long held a dominant position—the discourse of Chinese philosophy and social sciences is a brand new and vibrant reality compared to its Western counterpart. It is both autonomously generated from Chinese soil and produced through the process of "constructing amidst critique and critiquing amidst construction."
The construction of the discourse system inevitably contains a critique of Western discourse. This critique is not a blind negation; rather, it contains construction within it—it is a critique for the purpose of construction. Through the critique of Western discourse, the Chinese discourse system can be better constructed. As Marx pointed out in his work regarding The Poverty of Philosophy, this is done "to clear the way for a critical, materialistic socialism which seeks to explain the real, historical development of social production." In terms of methodology and strategy, the construction of this discourse system must both draw lessons from Western discourse and "jump out" of it, constructing and developing on the basis of its own subjecthood following a critique of the former.
On the one hand, for a long time, the West has movement its first-mover advantage to seize and occupy the initiative in discourse. Based on an epistemology of "Eurocentrism," it has used the ideology and discourse system generated from Western civilization to "construct" the non-Western civilization as the "Other." We must remain highly vigilant against and have the courage to break through the discourse "traps" set by this mode of thinking. We must clearly recognize that the Western discourse system is a form of "local knowledge" belonging to a specific type of civilization, rather than a so-called "universal" truth. Furthermore, it must not be used as a gold standard for the so-called "salvaging" and "transformation" of other non-Western cultures. Take, for example, the discourse of "modernization." In many previous cognitive frameworks, this often evolved into the discourse "rut" of "modernization = Westernization," which is a typical erroneous perception under the epistemology of "Eurocentrism." The process of modernization in human history indeed originated in the West; the industrial civilization of the West since the early modern period initiated the course of human modernization and secured the first-mover advantage. While Western modernization brought about development in the economy, technology, and civilization, its starting point was built upon the oppression of its own people and the colonization, aggression, and plunder of other countries and nations. Its developmental process was full of violence, bloodshed, and inequality; it was replete with the alienation and deprivation of human labor and value; it was saturated with material desire while lacking the dignity of the human being as a subject—features that have become even more prominent in the contemporary era. The reason the discourse "trap" of "modernization = Westernization" could be manufactured lies in the fact that Western countries, based on their first-mover and discursive advantages, used "Eurocentric" thinking to "de-subjectify" other non-Western cultures, thereby constructing a false discursive "mirror image." Only through a profound critique of the epistemological roots behind this discourse can we grasp the essence of modernization. This, in turn, allows us to achieve greater presentational and expressive power in our narrative when constructing the discourse of "Chinese-path modernization," doing so in a way that better conforms to objective laws and manifests subjectivity. It strengthens our confidence and determination to follow the road of "Chinese-path modernization" rather than the old path of "Western modernization."
On the other hand, the construction of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics originates from the autonomous production of knowledge by the Chinese people, led by the Communist Party of China (CPC), as they independently chose their path and engaged in practical exploration; it is the product of autonomous construction. Taking the discourse of "Chinese-path modernization" again as an example: its theoretical system has clear connotations and denotations, sufficient content elements, concise basic features, and rich value implications, possessing a typical discursive narrative tension. In his important speech at the ceremony marking the centenary of the founding of the CPC, General Secretary Xi Jinping stated that we have "created a new road of Chinese-path modernization and created a new form of human civilization." "Chinese-path modernization" and "a new form of human civilization" are expressed contiguously. The discursive quality inherent here is this: as a new road to modernization, Chinese-path modernization is distinct from Western modernization and is the Chinese people's own road to modernization. It is distinct from capitalist modernization; it is a socialist modernization forged by the Chinese people under the leadership of the CPC. It is distinct from Western modernization characterized by a huge gap between the rich and the poor and by extreme polarization; it is the modernization of common prosperity for all. It is distinct from Western modernization characterized by the malformed development of material civilization and the one-sided development of the individual; it is a modernization in which material and spiritual civilizations are coordinated. It is distinct from Western modernization where man and nature are in a stark "binary opposition"; it is a modernization of harmony between humanity and nature. It is distinct from Western modernization full of colonization, aggression, violence, and plunder; it is a modernization that follows the path of peaceful development. Through the "critical construction" of these various "differences" and an "autonomous construction" possessing its own internal prescriptions, the narrative of "Chinese-path modernization" expresses its universal significance, thereby realizing the functions of the discursive signifier, signified, and significance. In constructing the theoretical and discursive systems of "Chinese-path modernization," we have broken the discursive shackles of "Eurocentrism," generated the narrative of "Chinese-path modernization," and justly proclaimed the creation of a "new form of human civilization." Therefore, the construction of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is an interactive process of constructing through critique and critiquing through construction, intrinsically unified within the autonomous production of knowledge for a discourse system with Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese spirit [8].
III. The General and the Particular: Generative Issues in the Construction of the Discourse System for Philosophy and Social Sciences with Chinese Characteristics
The relationship between the general and the particular essentially discusses the dialectical relationship between "commonality" and "individuality" within philosophical categories; it is a generative issue that must be faced in constructing the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. How should this discourse system be generated? Based on the philosophical logic of the general and the particular, it is the unity of the general (commonality) and the particular (individuality). The general and the particular are a pair of basic categories revealing the commonality and individuality of the contradictions within things. The general is the side of commonality, while the particular is the side of individuality. The generality of a contradiction exists within its particularity: "the universal exists only in the individual and through the individual," and "every universal is (a fragment, or an aspect, or the essence of) an individual." The particularity of a contradiction contains generality; it is a concrete rather than an abstract particularity: "every individual is connected by a thousand transitions with other kinds of individuals." The dialectics of combining the general and the particular—that is, the dialectics of combining commonality and individuality—is the philosophical basis for adhering to the combination of the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific realities [9] and for constructing the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. That is to say, the generation and construction of this discourse system requires mastering the dialectics of the general and the particular, and properly handling the dialectical relationship of their mutual connection, mutual restriction, and mutual transition to achieve the internal conformity to regulations and logic of the discourse system's construction. As Mao Zedong pointed out: "This truth concerning commonness and individuality, concerning the absolute and the relative, is the quintessence of the problem of contradiction in things; failure to understand it is tantamount to abandoning dialectics."
The "general" emphasizes the "commonality" of the discursive signifier. As a form of speech or text that systematically expresses the ideas and concepts of an individual or group, discourse is an important medium and tool for human society to continue its development across long stretches of history and space. Communication is possible between different individuals, different groups, and different countries and nations. The medium of communication is discourse, and behind discourse lie different civilizations and cultures. Marx’s theory of world history profoundly elucidated the necessity of human exchange and connection. He believed: "In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production." The necessity of exchange between human civilizations imposes an internal prescription of "commensurability" in a philosophical sense on the production of a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. This means the production of discourse must conform to general mechanisms of discourse production, principles of discourse dissemination, and the logic of transforming discourse power. It must align with the general laws and universal logic of discourse in terms of the signifier to avoid "talking to oneself" [10]. As Mao Zedong once pointed out: "In shooting an arrow, one must target the bullseye; in playing the lute, one must consider the audience. Can one write articles or give speeches without considering the readers or the audience? When we make friends with anyone, if we do not understand each other's hearts and do not know what is in each other's minds, can we become intimate friends?" The "particular" emphasizes the "individuality" of the discursive signifier—that is, the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must have its own core theories, core topics, core categories, and core expressions. In terms of the significance of the signified, it must not only follow general laws but also innovate its own modes of discursive expression, demonstrating China’s unique linguistic forms, ways of thinking, and history and culture, reflecting the Chinese spirit and Chinese character. For a long time, Western discourse has used various discourse "traps"—such as the so-called "End of History," the "China threat," the "failure of socialism," and "capitalism with Chinese characteristics"—to attack and distort socialism with Chinese characteristics. How can the China story be told well? How can China’s voice be expressed? After solving the problems of "being attacked" and "starving," how do we solve the problem of "being scolded" [11]? The key lies in our discourse construction: we must tell the China story and explain the China road more vividly, concretely, and richly, with more distinct characteristics and style. We must be able to create modes of discursive expression that are both acceptable to all countries and possess Chinese characteristics, avoiding "parroting others." As General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized, we must "strive to create new concepts, new categories, and new expressions that integrate the Chinese and the foreign, to tell the China story well and spread China’s voice well."
Analyzed semantically, the "discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics" includes two keywords: "Chinese characteristics" and "discourse system." On the one hand, "discourse system" refers to the shared characteristics of all discursive components and expressions. That is, the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics has not deviated from the basic laws of knowledge production, the basic mechanisms of the generation of discourse and discourse power, or the basic logic of the production and transformation of discourse power. It is not "talking to oneself." This constitutes the universality and commonality of the discourse system—that is, achieving the "integration of China and the foreign." For instance, the generation of the discourse on "common values of all humanity" illustrates this. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "The Communist Party of China will continue to work with all peace-loving countries and peoples to promote the common values of all humanity: peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom." Peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom are the pursuits of all humanity. By clearly proposing the "common values of all humanity" which include these universal elements of human civilization, China exhibits a typical general feature of discourse production. Moreover, this generality possesses even greater significance because it is built on the premise of every country acting as an equal and autonomous subject. This stands in contrast to the so-called "universal values" discourse of the West, which not only uses its discursive advantage to forcibly "construct" a so-called "general significance" for "values" generated purely from its own local experience, but also uses its military, economic, and technological advantages to condescendingly dictate to and interfere in non-Western cultures. This Western discourse is full of ideological prejudice, and its essence and meaning are far removed from true generality.
On the other hand, "Chinese characteristics" refers to the fact that this discourse system possesses features and "individuality" distinct from other discourse systems. Discursive theory, generation, and the transformation of discourse power all bear a deep "Chinese imprint" in terms of political systems, economy, society, and local customs. In particular, it presents an integration of the discourse system of fine traditional Chinese culture with the Marxist discourse system across ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology. It possesses qualities of the signified that other or general discourse systems cannot reach, offering greater discursive tension. This is the particularity and individuality of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, manifesting cultural subjectivity. Taking "Chinese-path modernization" once again as an example: it is vastly different from Western modernization. It is not a simple imitation or expansion of Western modernization, but a modernization guided by Chinese theory, rooted in Chinese culture, and based on Chinese national conditions. It is a road to modernization that the Chinese people, led by the CPC, have taken independently and with complete autonomy and subjectivity. This "identifying concept" and "identifying expression" present both the general laws of world modernization and the common characteristics of modernization across all countries. Its discursive signifier manifests universal commonalities such as civility, scientific rigor, and technological advancement, while also possessing vivid qualities based on China’s own conditions and distinct features that explore the future direction of modernization for human society. This discourse, highlighting Chinese traits, possesses even greater general significance because it "provides a new choice for humanity to achieve modernization" and "creates a new form of human civilization." Revolving around the proposition of modernization and based on the vivid practice of Chinese-path modernization, we have continuously derived and developed a variety of expressive paradigms and discourse clusters representing the positions, viewpoints, actions, expressions, and dissemination of Chinese-path modernization—such as "industrialization," the "Four Modernizations," the "two-step approach," the "three-step approach," the "new three-step approach," "xiaokang" (a moderately prosperous society), "comprehensive xiaokang," and "common prosperity." Through the Chinese miracle created by the practical innovations of Chinese-path modernization, we have generated and even verified for the world a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics that possesses Chinese features and individuality, and which continues to grow and be produced. Therefore, the generation and construction of this discourse system is both the existence of "general knowledge" and the development of "local knowledge." It is precisely because of this indigenous nature that it possesses greater general significance; it is the unity of generality and particularity, and the organic combination of commonality and individuality.
IV. The Ought and the Is: The Discourse System for Philosophy and Social Sciences with Chinese Characteristics...
The practical question of constructing a discourse system—dealing with the "ought" (应然, yingran) versus the "is" (实然, shiran)—is essentially a discussion of the dialectical relationship between "ideal" and "reality" within philosophical categories. It is the practical problem that the construction of a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must confront: namely, the practical integration of "what to say" with "how to say it." The "ought" and the "is" are both distinct and interconnected; their relationship manifests as the tension between an ideal existence and a state of reality. The "is" refers to existing being—the actual reality emerging in the present. The "ought" is latent within the "is"; it is the ideal existence that should emerge in the future. Whether in the natural world or human society, the "ought" and the "is" are mutually dependent modes of existence: reality contains elements of the "ought," while the ideal contains elements of the "is." In other words, the philosophical "ought" is an ideal state—the ideal presentation of "how things should be"—whereas the "is" is an objective state—the realistic expression of "how things actually are." The laws governing the development of things manifest alternately and intertwine through this theoretical and practical reason. Similarly, the development of human civilization achieves a continuous elevation of the "is" through the unremitting pursuit of the "ought," ultimately reaching the result of "necessity" (必然, biran).
"Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical [thorough]." The "ought" in constructing a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics emphasizes the "ought" of discourse generation—that is, what the mode and content of discourse generation should be. It addresses the question of "what to say," intending to ensure that discourse is grounded in evidence and substances. As an ideal existence, the "ought" of the discourse system focuses on what its content, structure, elements, and functions should ultimately express. It asks what kind of new concepts, categories, and expressions must be proposed to create a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics that possesses Chinese features, Chinese style, and Chinese ethos [12].
Conversely, the "is" of this construction emphasizes the "is" of discourse expression—that is, how the modes of expression and practical verification of discourse actually function. It addresses the question of "how to say it," ensuring that discourse is reasoned and effective. As a reality, the "is" of the discourse system is not merely a collection of visible or tangible "phenomena" or "appearances." Rather, it utilizes the ideal height of the "ought" to engage in rational reflection on how to reach that height. It grasps "reality" within the unity of necessity and contingency, essence and phenomenon, and the sensible and the rational. It explores the logical frameworks, basic dimensions, and constructive principles required to forge a discourse system with Chinese features, style, and ethos, ultimately finding the bright path toward "necessity." In short, the production of content and the formal expression of the discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must simultaneously solve the problems of "what to say" and "how to say it." Through the unity of content production and formal expression, we proceed from the pursuit of the "ought," continuously grasp and elevate the state of the "is," and finally achieve the "necessity" of fulfilling the functions of discourse.
The organic unity of content production and formal expression, the organic combination of the signifier and the signified, and the organic transformation of discourse narrative into discourse power [13] constitute a complex systematic project. We must traverse philosophical "incommensurability" to the greatest extent possible and minimize the "diminishing returns" in semantic expression. To enhance the expressive power, influence, and penetration of discourse, the most urgent task is to achieve the integration of political discourse, academic discourse, and popular discourse based on a solid theoretical foundation and substantial practical content. This will give rise to a discourse system and expression that is well-grounded, rhetorically sound, and "down to earth" [14].
The discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics is an organic unity of political, academic, and popular discourse. Political discourse, as the political expression of cultural and value standards within a political context, manifests political character, authority, and charisma. Academic discourse, primarily serving as the theoretical expression that explains and defines the generation, dissemination, and transformation of discourse from a scholarly perspective, manifests theoretical, academic, and systematic qualities. Popular discourse, rooted in the interests and needs of the masses, manifests simplicity, accessibility, and breadth. By correctly handling the relationship between these three, using simple and plain language to express and respond to problems, and transforming political and academic discourse into popular discourse, we can achieve "discourse popularization" (话语大众化). By bringing discourse closer to the lives and hearts of the masses through discourse innovation, the "ought" of discourse content and the "is" of discourse expression can become a "necessity" that truly "flies into the homes of ordinary people" [15].
The discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics must possess the height of politics, the depth of theory, and the warmth of popular life. In the interactive fusion of height, depth, and warmth, thorough theory is the fundamental basis—the key to dismantling Western discourse "traps" and leaping out of Western discourse "ruts." Rich practice is the guarantee of content. The foothold for constructing this discourse system is the vivid practice of Chinese-path modernization. As General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out, "The rich practice of reform and opening up and socialist modernization in the New Era is a 'rich mine' (富矿) for theoretical and policy research." The rich, profound, and wise practice of Chinese-path modernization provides the empirical facts upon which Chinese discourse stands. It is the key to supporting relevant discourse theories and breaking the shackles of "Western-centrism." The construction of this discourse system should be embedded within the process of Chinese-path modernization, continuously producing a systematic and vivid discourse system that matches its development—one that possesses both scholarly significance and fresh practical expression. Refined expression is a necessary requirement and a vital aspect of advancing the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism and ensuring the Party's innovative theories take root in people's hearts. Only when discourse content and expression simultaneously possess political, academic, and popular qualities can they effectively "know the world," "explain the world," and "transform the world." This allows discourse to interface seamlessly with life and integrates discourse practice with discourse effects, effectively forming the logical transformation from discourse production to discourse power.
The Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee emphasized: "We must speed up the development of a Chinese discourse system and a Chinese narrative system, and comprehensively improve the effectiveness of international communication." Facing the objective reality of the "strong West and weak East" (西强东弱) in international communication, where developed Western countries still dominate international discourse power, it is especially urgent to construct a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, tell China's stories well, spread China's voice, and enhance international discourse power commensurate with our comprehensive national strength and international status. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized, "Telling China’s stories well, making China’s voice heard, and presenting a true, multi-dimensional, and panoramic view of China are key tasks in strengthening our international communication capacity." He further noted, "We must accelerate the construction of a Chinese discourse and narrative system, use Chinese theory to interpret Chinese practice, use Chinese practice to sublimate Chinese theory, and create new concepts, new categories, and new expressions that integrate China and the outside world, more fully and clearly showcasing the stories of China and the ideological and spiritual power behind them." Starting from the logical connections between the philosophical categories of the one and the many, critique and construction, the general and the particular, and the "ought" and the "is," we must inquire into what a discourse system with its own subjectivity actually is, what it says, and how it says it. Further transforming the institutional advantages and governance efficacy of socialism with Chinese characteristics into discourse advantages is a necessary requirement for the unity of purposiveness and lawfulness in constructing a discourse system for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics.